tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Feb 22 19:14:43 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: agentive -wI'

> Will wrote:
> >A {bomwI'} is a singer. Not a song singer. That would be a {bom bomwI'}. 
> >One who conquers it/him/her/them would be {'oH/ghaH/ghaH/chaH charghwI'}.
> But now I'm puzzled by your other example: {chaH charghwI'} "The conqueror of 
> them".  If mine is {HoHwI'wI'}, shouldn't yours be {charghwI'chaj}?

HIvqa' veqlargh! You are correct. Good eye.

That should be charghwI'Daj/charghwI'chaj. I offer both just because the 
original reference was to both singular and plural.
> I wrote:
> > And if it is correct, why?  Why not {jIH muHoHwI'} or just {muHoHwI'}?  
> > Wouldn't those be the same thing?
> Will wrote:
> >Both of those terms are gibberish. You can't use a prefix on a nominalized 
> verb 
> >with {-wI'}.
> I was trying to make the verb agree with what I perceived as its object, 
> which in reality is its possessor, if I understand correctly.

It is good to watch the light go on.
> Will wrote:
> >[..]when I see people I know who are 
> >definitely skilled enough to do impressive things with the language become 
> >misled enough to promote a really strange idea with seeming authority, I 
> feel a 
> >strong urge to leap in and kill the argument before less experienced people 
> >become confused by the misleading arguments presented by those these new >
> people 
> >trust to present the truths of the language.
> It is abundantly clear to me, at least, that the issue of using prefixes with 
> -wI' is quite controversial, even if I don't understand every nuance of both 
> arguments.  I know that there's only one person who can make a statement 
> about Klingon grammar with absolute authority, and that he isn't on this list.

Quite true. Still, with 85 examples in the collected vocabulary, there are very 
few areas of grammar as well illustrated as nominalizing verbs with {-wI'}. We 
arge a lot about things for which we only have one or two examples, but 85 
pretty well lays things out for fairly easy study.
> FWIW, I see no cause to "kill" any debate, short of Dr. Okrand specifically 
> telling us what's what....

I do. My goal is to have people speaking the language, not just arguing over 
how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I serve that goal best when I 
shut up and let charghwI' talk. I'm not proud of these outbursts, but I can't 
stand and watch an environment full of beginners taking in arguments about how 
prefixes should be used with verbs with {-wI'} when I'm quite certain they 
cannot, under any circumstances, ever be used. This is how we get a generation 
of people who can't speak the language well, babbling gibberish based on ideas 
that don't have any evidence behind them.

> Just my opinion.

And mine.

> -Sengval


Back to archive top level